Sunday, March 27, 2011

The Task Set Before Us

First, I believe that the president's power as commander-in-chief of the military is very simple to understand. He has the power to give any (lawful) order to anyone in the military, and it must be obeyed. That includes things like ordering the military to blockade, bomb, or even invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran.

However, the definition of a lawful order is limited by both international law -- which means treaties that the U.S. has signed, and more importantly the "law of war" that says things like you're not allowed to harm, and in fact have a duty to protect, civilians, prisoners, and anyone else who doesn't try to harm you or disobey your orders.

Furthermore, lawful orders are restricted by the specific rules that the U.S. military follows, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and that's set by Congress, as specified in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Paragraphs 10-16 and especially Paragraph 14, "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

That means if Congress wants to specify that "No member of the armed forces of the United States shall enter Libya," they can do it. And they can certainly specify the various conditions listed in the War Powers Resolution.

1 comment:

Anonymous
said...

I am really impressed with your writing skills and also with the layout on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself?Anyway keep up the nice quality writing, it is rare to see a great blog like this one these days.

The Plight of Iraqi Refugees

Free the New Yourth 4!

Who Died and Made Me John Brunner?

According to the test site linked above, I am apparently the late John Brunner. While I happen to disagree with Brunner's views on economics (he was an openly- committed socialist) and foreign policy (he believed in either "moral equivalence" between democracies and dictatorships, or else "Blame America First"), I share his humanist attitude and I loved his writing.
And I hope to die like he did -- in my sleep after being the guest of honor at a Worldcon banquet.

A radical libertarian believes in little to no government intervention for both personal and economic matters. A radical libertarian generally believes in one out of these two options: (1) A government that is extremely small and limited to the extent of protecting people's liberty - this view is known as Minarchism (2) No government at all, in which the private sector takes up all legitimate functions that a government would have - this view is known as Anarcho-Capitalism. Radical Libertarians tend to be strongly opposed to war, police powers, victimless crimes, foreign intervention and what they consider to be a welfare state. Radical Libertarians tend to be inspired by the Austrian school of economics, classical liberalism and 19th century individualist anarchism. Libertarian thought is individualist in nature. They try to protect both personal and economic liberty. Examples of Radical Libertarianism would be Murray Rothbard, H.L. Mencken, Ludwig Von Mises and Lysander Spooner.

My test tracked 2 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: